Crow_Ascending
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 14
Here's the link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm curious, do you know or have you heard any explenation to the bruises up and down her arms? When I read the web site that is pro Darlie did not do it, they had photo's and talked about these defense bruises. Just when I feel sure she did it, I read something that makes me question it.
ETA: I just ordered the book by Barbara Davis, she did a 180 on her opinion so now I want to read what she first thought happened.
I will assert, as I have previously on this topic (to be shot down) that, however innappropriate the behaviour, this video had no place at her trial (and how the pros had the gall to use it when the officers pleaded the 5th re ther other tape I don't know). People acting inappropriately does not make them killers. Evidence of such behaviour proves neither guilt nor a tendency to participate in criminal behaviour.
Irrespective of whether she is guilty or innocent, the video is not relevant to the consideration of whether she killed her children. If it hadn't been included, then maybe there wouldn't be so much debate about whether her conviction is safe or not. Those who say she would have been found gulity without it, well, we don't know that so thats a pointless assertion.
Mothers out there.....ever had a drink whilst being in charge of your children? What if a genuine accident happened and evidence of your drinking behaviour prior to or after the incident was used to implicate you re the actual incident? It just isn't relevant unless there was a direct causal link between the behaviour and what happened.
I do not want to see guilty people go free, I want public confidence in the conviction in the first place.
As I said on another thread about the silly string video.......if Darlie had lost her boys in what could be called normal deaths, that is, by cancer, or by a long illness, then maybe you could accept her being joyful for Devon that he was to celebrate his birthday in heaven.That he as released from earthly pain.
But she didn't lose them that way.
She had them ripped from her life by a vile act of murder, a murder so foul that people today still can't come to the terms of it.
That little Devon who was having the birthday should have been running excitedly around the place with his brother getting ready for his cake and party.
But he wasn't.
He was lying cold and dead hand in hand with his beloved brother under six feet of earth.
If Darlie can find something to celebrate in that then I am afraid she is a real sicko.
Ok I'm not sure why you are quoting me ? I didn't respond to cyberlaw ??
I was asking Kitty if she was yelling at me by using all bolds, and it was a genuine question, Ive not seen a computer where the bold can be locked down ??
In regards to this topic being a hotbed, I havent been rude or nasty to anyone in here, I have stated my opinion and been poo poo'd for it from a number of people.
If you believe Darlie is guilty well thats fine.
But there is no need for anyone to be sarcastic, use smileys to be rude or anything else.
There is plenty of Fors and Againsts for lots of people who have been charged with a crime - everyone handles the topic with respect and I do not see why this Case has to be different.
I believe Darlie should get a new Trial. I have read the transcripts.
I read the other day that Jury's find it VERY hard to give the DP to a woman.
And now that I have read that some jurors feel remorse for giving her the DP and convicting her I have to ask why ?
And I have followed up on the suggestion that it was *jurors remorse* and accordingly I do not believe this was the case with these jurors from what I have read and seen.
In regards to the silly string episode I wanted to re discover it because It has been stated numerous times that she was largely convicted DUE TO that episode in conjunction with other things , yes, But this was in the Jurys head all the time....
Can I just ask that we discuss this nicely in a calm and friendly manner please ?
I would hate to see the DR forums taken away again![]()
My question to you now is if you are so adamant that she is guilty then why will it bother you if she has a new trial ? if the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear cut as you say then surely a new trial won't matter
(lets put away costs of trials and things - that isn't the point here - because I am sure at the end of the day, money aside if someone *was* innocent you would rather them not die right ?)
So my point is this, as the silly string graveside episode was so *disturbing* to the Jury and Viewers alike and as they made their judgement they carried that *disturbing* thought in their heads along with the photos of the two slain , bloodied, little boys bodies - images - in their heads and came up with Guilty.
If that had not have been shown as putting Darlie in front of them as a partying , dancing , non grieving mother on their graves then it might have been harder....
That is my sole point to this entire thread.
I just want a new trial. Because I believe this was a very unjust one. And isn't everyone entitled to a fair and just trial ?
Respectfully, I got "THIS" information from reading the transcripts!
During a "real" trial, witnesses are not allowed to listen to each others testimony. Why do you think that is?
I don't know if the defense had a mock trial or not. I would guess no. From reading the transcripts, it seems to me all the defense did for Darlie, when they did anything at all, was try to put out fires lit by the prosecution. IMO, Darlie would have done much better sticking with PD rather than switching to Mulder. A first year law student could have done better than he! This is the reason I feel Darlie deserves a new trial.
No blood outside the home....did police really look for any....given that there was a big storm....and the fact that Cron pretty much decided within the first half hour of being inside the home there was no intruder?
Yes and suprise surpise they are the photos that were NOT shown to the Jury
I'm not really arguing (at this point) whether she did it or didn't do it
I do not believe she had a fair trial, and agreed from all accounts her lawyer was NOT acting in her best interest at all, I don't care if it he is the best lawyer in the whole world he had a conflict of interest because of Darin
She needs a new trial, and really if everyone thinks she is so guilty what is everyone scared of by her having a new trial ?
If she is that guilty then the new jury will convict Guilty again and that will be the end of it
Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.<snip>
... the defense had the option to play the surveillance tape for the jury to impeach the ss tape but they didn't for some reason.
<snip>
:doh:LOL,
Everywhere!where did you expect the police to look for blood?
(my bold) FYI, there was blood in the garage. That's as good a place as any to start. Better than "on the furniture that was outside the window!" :bang:If there's none in the garage, none on the exit window, none on the gate or fence, none on the walkway or on the furniture that was outside the window....where else should they look?
Yes, not long after the ambulance rolled away with Darlie....The storm happened after the house was released and the evidence already collected.
What Cron didn't know and never offered was who on the inside committed the crime.
Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.
The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution 99.9% of the time during Darlie's trial. So much for stiking prejudicial, irrelevant "evidence."
:doh:
Everywhere!
(my bold) FYI, there was blood in the garage. That's as good a place as any to start. Better than "on the furniture that was outside the window!" :bang:
Yes, not long after the ambulance rolled away with Darlie....
<snip>
Do you think this is why he practically recanted his testimony?
Incompetence, conflict of interest, rogue attorney, lazy....take your pick.
The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution 99.9% of the time during Darlie's trial. So much for stiking prejudicial, irrelevant "evidence."
The trial was fair, the judge was fair, there was no incompetence(if there was, that could be brought up on appeal, but that is usually the first thing a guilty person does, blame the lawyer. No rouge attorneys, only two of the most expense high powered attorneys in Texas at that time represented Darlie at trial, and by no means where they lazy. They know what evidence would be presented and they put on a "good" case for their client.
The only difficulty that they were facing, is the many stories of Darlie told not only to LE, but friends and relatives. The forensics, the blood spatter evidence and Darlie herself. Against her Lawyers advice, Darlie took the stand and related "her version" of events in her world. Too bad those "stories" and events do not even come close to the evidence collected at the scene. Her cross exam was "devestating" to the defense as that is why Lawyer do not put their clients on the stand.
So a person can believe a story or believe the evidence. Well the evidence does not lie.
Both sides can have "closed" door hearing on evidence and challenge both. Both can argue prejudicial and probative value of the evidence.
By Darlie claimng that she is a grieving mother, well the "probative" value of the tape will contradict and disprove this. That is probative and disproves her "claim" that she is a distraught mother.
No prejudice in that.
Darlie never thoguht because of her injuries that anyone would doubt her. In her "self aborsed" state, she thought that her story would be believed at face value. Little did she know that LE are "well trained(not just a high school diploma)and they have many years of experience and deal with murderers "stories" all the time. But they "investigate" and look at the evidence and determined if the evidence matches the story. When the evidence does not(as in this case)they tend to suspect the only person who was "present" during the murders.
For all of the "pro Darlie" fans outthere, Justice for Damon and Devon has been served by the death penalty. Now when the penalty takes place is a whole another question.
But the State of Texas did seek and receive justice for the brutal murder of two little boys who went to sleep one night and never woke to see another day. Never had the chance for their life and the joys that would have come. Darlie saw to the fact that the "firsts" will never come.
There has been many criminals that "think" they can outsmart people who have many years of post secondary training, pass the bar and practice law. Guess what, criminals are criminals for a reason and most of them are none too bright. Darlie is no exception.
LOL, you know that Darlie was the worst type of defendant. She refused to take Mulder's advice. She refused to allow any mitigating factors and went for straight innocence when everyone knew the evidence was stacked against her, and she refused her attorneys advice not to testify and took the stand, major mistake on her part. She thought she could just lie to the jury and fool everyone but she was caught in her own lies.
Yep, they really tore her apart on the stand.
1 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:Listen we've been through this again and again and again with you. There was no blood in the garage. If there was please post the testimony that proves it. <snip>